"The GI Bill gives emphatic notice to the men and women in our armed forces that the American people do not intend to let them down."Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1944
Yesterday, the Senate overwhelmingly, 75-22, passed the 2008 GI-Bill. The House has already passed a version of the bill. We could be headed to a veto fight between Congress and the President. And the debate over the bill also was highlighted by a War of Words from the two presumtive presidential candidates -- Barack Obama who voted for the Bill -- and John McCain -- who was absent, at a California fund-raiser. Obama criticized McCain's lack of support for the bill, McCain shot back that he was not going to take any lectures for someone who never served.
The Politico reports:
"The Senate approved a $194.1 billion wartime spending bill Thursday that as a rider promises a greatly expanded GI education benefit for veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan.
The pivotal 75-22 roll call triggered a late scramble of Republicans who switched their votes as the outcome became clearly in favor of the new education benefit as well as billions more in domestic spending for the jobless and Gulf Coast states.
Republicans leaders, working in the well of the chamber, first tried to hold the line below 60 votes, then 67, a veto-proof margin. But when this also collapsed, individual senators were released to vote for the measure.
But unless adjustments are made, the entire wartime bill faces an almost certain veto fight with the president. The question is whether cooler heads will prevail and Congress and the White House will begin some negotiation to avoid another veto fight, which is not necessarily to the advantage of either side."
The bill author, Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) said recently on "Meet the Press" that if President Bush vetoes the measure, he would be the first president to reject benefits to those who have served in a time of war:
"No president in history has vetoed a benefits bill for those who served. … The Republican party is on the block here, to clearly demonstrate that they value military service or suffer the consequences of losing the support of people who’ve served. … The president has a choice here to show how much he values military service," Webb said.
Watch it here:
More on the GI-Bill 2008 here:
More on the McCain-Obama War of Words here:
Our two senators voted for the bill. Our House Rep. Judy Biggert voted against.
The questions are: Will the President veto, even though there are apparently enough votes to override his rejection? Will my former student, Tim B. write me back a response letter to explain why my member of Congress is supporting the President and NOT the Troops? And, what does it really mean (besides putting a bumper sticker on your car or a flag pin in your lapel) TO SUPPORT the TROOPS?
4 comments:
Tech Sgt. Jimmie Jacobs (WV teacher) just returnted from Wisconsin for combat readiness training.
As a member of the Illinois Air National Guard, Sgt. Jacobs had his schooling paid for by the State of Illinois (not all states provide this beneift). By serving one year in the military and completing formal training he qualified for federal benefits under the current Montgomery GI Bill (an additional $317 a month for a full time student).
The current debate over this benefit is military retention. Sen. Webb's bill gives the benefit for three years of service. Sen. McCain and President Bush beleive this could hurt retention.
The counter proposal is to extend the benefit in exchange for 12 years of service.
Here's Sgt. Jacobs take on the benefit:
"People would rather take student loans than serve in the military for 12 years to get school paid for."
We definitely need the spending and we definitely need to support the troops. My only concern is where the money for this bill will come from. Another reason to get rid of farm subsidies and cut spending on social programs wherever and whenever possible!
Im glad this bill passed with overwhelming majority. I cant believe the Republican party would actually try to destroy this bill. Not only would it ruin one of the Republican bases but also it would make them look incredibly foolish in the eyes of the country. I hope President Bush reconsiders the veto and signs this bill because all Americans should support our troops even if you dont support their mission. I hope John McCain will come back and vote correctly in favor of the GI Bill (if Bush vetos) as anyone who opposes this bill is not a true Patriotic American. Im sure congress could figure out a way to give our troops these benefits without increasing taxes however I wouldnt mind that too so long as our troops get the support they need.
I am against this bill, so I am glad that W is going to veto it. Troops do not need any benefits, because they got a stimulus package. You know that the buck stretches pretty far if you shop at the off brand version of walmart. On the other hand, I do not think it would be a bad plublicity stunt to pass the bill, and then force all of the troops to some big hole where they could not take advantage of these benefits. Or maby instead of a hole we could send them to some far off country with just enough fighting to keep them there, but not enough to warrent the wasteful spending of the military. And preferably to some middle eastern country since that area seems to be a buzz word right now.
Post a Comment